Tag Archives: revilo oliver

A Grim and Terrible Fact


Revilo Oliver begins The Jewish Strategy with an insight which only becomes more relevant as jewish power and the elaborate efforts to disguise or excuse it make themselves ever more obvious:

IT IS A GRIM AND TERRIBLE FACT that most of the members of our own race have had their minds so deformed by centuries of cunning Jewish propaganda that they have been conditioned, as effectively as well-trained dogs, to snarl and bite when their Jewish masters utter certain key-words, such as “fascist,” “racist,” and the like, which take the place of the “sic ’em” to which dogs respond. They are, furthermore, so emotionally addicted to narcotic fantasies that many of them are both unwilling and unable to endure the distress of looking at the real world about them and thinking rationally about it. They understandably prefer to close tightly the eyes of their minds and live in the dream-world of pleasurable fairy tales, such as they heard in the childhood to which they subconsciously long to regress. As Kipling neatly characterized them, “If they desire a thing, they declare it is true. If they desire it not, though that were death itself, they cry aloud, ‘It has never been!'”

It is a tragic and potentially disastrous fact that any candid and reasonably comprehensive analysis of our present plight not only exposes its author to surreptitious or open reprisals, but also alienates many members of our befuddled and perhaps doomed race, making them snarl and want to bite the man who would make them face an unpleasant reality. Many more are so timorous that even a hint of disrespect for Jews sends them running for cover, like frightened cats, lest the Jews punish them for having listened to impious words.

This pattern recurs in every jewed facet of reaction to jewing for the same reason “anti-semitism” follows the jews wherever they go. Jewish parasitism comprises infiltration, manipulation and exploitation. Naturally, they seek to neutralize and overcome the resentment and resistance their behavior engenders in their hosts by applying ever more of the same. From the jewish hammer’s point of view everything else really is just a jew-hating nail.

Apropos “jewish manipulation of White vulnerabilities”, as discussed in the comments of Gaslighting, Oliver’s insight also accounts for the vector, the characteric elements of White racial mentality jews manipulate. Oliver laid out a total of seven elements in What We Owe Our Parasites. In the two paragraphs above he points to the White capacity for imagination being driven to “narcotic fantasies” and the White capacity for compassion misdirected into either snarling or sniveling. These latter symptoms are analogous to an auto-immune response – a pathological response which is, of course, instigated by and serves the interests of the pathogen, the jews.

The cure, or at least the first step toward one, is to “wake up”. To recognize the fantasies and misdirections as such. To face reality, no matter how unpleasant. As Oliver put it:

A dream is by definition a series of sensations that occur in the brain when both our senses of perception and our powers of will and reason are in abeyance, so that we have no control over that flux of sensations. But it is, of course, a well-known phenomenon that when we dream that we are dreaming, the dream ends and we awaken. Then the conscious mind takes over and we are again responsible for our thoughts, and must face a day in which we must be responsible for our actions, which, by their wisdom or folly, may determine the rest of our lives. Our dreams may give expression, pleasant or painful, to our subconscious desires or fears. But in our waking hours we must, if we are rational, make our decisions on the basis of the most objective and cold-blooded estimates that we can make: estimates of the forces and tendencies in the world about us; estimates of the realities with which we must deal; remembering always that nothing is likely to happen just because we think it’s good, or unlikely to happen just because we think it’s evil.

If ever we have had need to appraise carefully and rationally our position and prospects, the time is now.

War Looms – RPO on FPY


This may be regarded as an addendum to my recent examination of Francis Parker Yockey. Revilo Pendelton Oliver’s critique of Yockey, and by extension Oswald Spengler and philosophers of history more generally, is far more erudite and articulate than anything I could possibly muster.

Both Yockey and Oliver dedicated themselves to analyzing and diagnosing European decline, marshalling an encyclopedic knowledge of European thought and history. Unlike Yockey, Oliver recognized the biological nature of race, thus he better understood the jews and did not discount their role in the problem.

Where Yockey concerned himself with “the Western Civilization”, Oliver identified more directly with his people, his race, the Aryans. Where Yockey anthropomorphized Rationalism and other amorphous concepts, as if they had a life and will of their own, Oliver saw more clearly the significance of heritable personality traits.

In my own humble opinion, the main oversight in Oliver’s analysis is in equating contemporary Whites exclusively with the Aryans, thus neglecting whatever contribution to our psyche and situation may derive from the Old Europeans the Aryans conquered and mixed with. Nevertheless, where Yockey’s observations are valuable, Oliver’s are priceless.

The following excerpts are from Oliver’s Enemy of Our Enemies: A Critique of Francis Parker Yockey’s The Enemy of Europe. It is lengthy but well worth reading. The portions below illustrate the points I’ve made above, or are otherwise relevant to related topics I’ve touched on previously.

WHEN Francis Parker Yockey completed and published Imperium in 1948, he wrote a comparatively short sequel or pendant to his major work. This sequel, which he later entitled The Enemy of Europe

What is Europe? More to the point: Who is us? What to call ourselves?

(10. The word ‘Aryan’ is commonly avoided these days by writers who fear that the Jews will punish them for using it, but we do need a specific designation for our race and one that will permit us to restrict ‘Indo-European’ to use as a linguistic term, since, as everyone knows, race and language are quite different things, and language is not an indication of race or even nationality. (Jews are not Germans because many of them speak Yiddish, which is basically a corruption of a low dialect of German, and the Congoids residing in the United States are not Anglo-Saxon because their only language is a debased English.) The great pioneer in social anthropology, Vacher de Lapouge, would have us restrict the term ‘Aryan’ historically to the division of our race that conquered India and Persia and sooner or later destroyed itself by miscegenation with the aborigines they had subdued. (One has only to think of the mongrel population of modern Iran, of which the name, derived from arya through the Zend Airyana, means ‘land of the Aryans’!) He would have us use the Linnaean biological classification, Homo Europaeus and Homo Alpinus, which correspond to ‘Nordic’ and ‘Alpine’ in the more common terminology; but the awkwardness of those terms is obvious. The Sanskrit arya is not only the designation by which conquerors of India and Persia identified themselves, but also a word meaning ‘noble,’ which designates the qualities of heroism, chivalry, and magnanimity for which our race has always had a characteristic and distinctive admiration, and is therefore better than any neologism we might devise. So long as we intend to consider objectively the phenomena of the real world, we should not be deterred by the threats of our biological enemies nor yet by the yapping of trained witlings of our own race.)

What are our personality traits? Note that the rationalism Yockey identified as part of the problem, Oliver identified as our dominant characteristic:

… if there is a dominant characteristic of our civilization, it is the capacity (in good minds) for rigorously objective observation of nature and strictly rational inferences and deductions therefrom–the mentality that has made possible our science and technology. This is the type of mentality that Professor Haas, whom I mentioned above, calls ‘philosophical’ to distinguish it from other types, and if we look through recorded history and insist on something more than the invention of simple devices, such as wheels or bows and arrows or permanent buildings, we find the first manifestation of this mentality in the Ionian philosophers, who sought to explain the universe without invoking magic and a mythology about praeterhuman beings. That is the real substance of Graeco-Roman philosophy, and we should take especial notice of the New Academy, from which comes the basic method of modern science, which depends on a nice calculation of probabilities. If we look for this rational view of the world in other civilizations, we find no trace of it in the Egyptian or the Sumerian-Babylonian, for in both of these, so far as we know, the world was always thought of as the work of gods and its phenomena attributed to magic, not to the regularity of natural laws.

We find, therefore, in our civilization a type of mentality paralleled only in Graeco-Roman antiquity, where, significantly, it is the mentality of men of our race.

What’s wrong with the analysis of Spengler and Yockey?

The cardinal flaw in the historical theories of Spengler and Yockey is an almost perverse equivocation about the biological reality of race. Both strive to make race more or less independent of genetics, although they do not go so far as does Alexander Raven, who would reduce civilization to a “super-organic” idea. In The Enemy of Europe (p. 43), Yockey insists that “the idea of vertical [= linear, i.e., hereditary] race is dead…. The race one feels in oneself is everything, the anatomico-geographic group whence one comes means nothing,” and he even deplores the racial policy of the National Socialist regime as “an enormous tragedy.” (25) It is true that Yockey, following Spengler, had the strange notion that the physical characteristics of race, such as the cephalic index, were determined by the landscape and soil, not be genes, in proof whereof “long-headed Jews from Sicily, and short-headed ones from Germany, produced offspring with the same average head measurement, the specifically American one.” (26) Spengler was taken in by some of the propaganda for an American “melting pot” and especially by the hoax contrived by Franz Boas, a twisted little Jew, who popped into the United States, was, for undisclosed reasons, made Professor of Anthropology in Columbia University, and founded a school of fiction-writing called “social anthropology,” (27) It is also true that Spengler and Yockey, unlike Raven, do not categorically deny that race in the accepted meaning of that word does determine the outlook of a people and hence the quality of their civilization, but they create some confusion by using ‘race’ and ‘thoroughbred’ to designate a high degree of excellence in individuals who, it seems, are largely the product of the soil of the region in which they reside. They simply ignore the vast amount of scientific evidence that the potentiality of every individual is unalterably determined by his heredity, although obviously his development will be affected by nutrition and other environmental factors and, of course, by sheer accident, which may terminate his life at any stage.

See Race and Fraud: Franz Boas and the half dozen or so subsequent installments for more on the jewish hijacking of anthropology.

Relating Yockey’s minimization of biology to his desire for European unity:

The urge to minimize or conceal biological and even cultural differences is related to the practical problem that has confronted every ruler and statesman since Sumerian times: the need to create a state (which is necessarily territorial) by inducing some cohesive unity among the more or less diverse peoples who are residing in that territory at the time and whom it is not expedient to expel. This was an acute problem throughout Europe, including Germany, where the proverbial differences in temperament between the typical Prussian and the typical Bavarian could seem as great as a difference between major races to a population that had, for the most part, little contact with non-Aryan races except the chameleon-like Jews with their racial ability to simulate the manners of other races when it is profitable to do so.

This attempt to minimize the biological nature of men is paradoxical in writers who not only recognize that the greater part of human conduct is determined by instincts and tropisms that are largely subconscious, but so restrict the function of reason as to make it virtually without effect on the course of history. We are told–and the proposition is illustrated by examples drawn from the history of our race–that great men, who determine events rather than chatter or write about them, have a ‘tact’ or instinct that enables them to make correct decisions with so little reliance on their rational powers that they may not know why they took the action that made them victorious or successful in a given undertaking. Their strength comes, not from superior powers of cognition and cogitation, but from a faith in their own destiny. The psychological problem cannot be analyzed here, (28) but if we accept the claim that even the greatest men are basically irrational, we thereby attribute to heredity an absolute power over human conduct, of which it becomes the sole determinant, since it is beyond question that in all mammals, including men, instincts are innate and genetically transmitted. The logical conclusion to be drawn from Spengler’s psychology, therefore, is that biological race is supremely important. Granting that “the race one feels in oneself” is what counts, what one feels (as distinct from what one may simulate) is genetically determined.

More on race and the jews. Why the Nuremberg Laws were justified, but not strict enough – and how Toynbee, Spengler and even Yockey underestimated the jews:

Yockey’s denunciation of “materialistic race-thinking” does have some basis in the lamentably elementary state of our present knowledge of racial genetics, which may be compared to the state of chemical science at the death of Lavoisier. The natural laws that determine the inheritance of physiological characteristics, such as color of eyes or olfactory sensitivity, are fairly well ascertained, but we are far from being able to identify racial genotypes. The problem is of enormous complexity, and is further complicated by the migratory and adventurous proclivities of our own race.

Although we can, within limits, determine the transmission and inheritance of physical traits, and although we know that intellectual capacity, as shown by intelligence tests, is genetically determined, we know virtually nothing about the biological mechanism that transmit the almost infinitely complex elements of human consciousness and subconscious being. In certain instances, at least, the psychic elements may be independent of the strictly physiological. No anthropologist or geneticist can explain the fact that there are Jews, members of Yahweh’s Master Race, who exhibit the physical characteristics of other races. The Jews in China, for example, seem to Western eyes, at least, indistinguishable from the Mongolians among whom they reside, although they are spiritually and mentally full members of the Self-Chosen People. We must assume that the Jews, who have preserved their racial identity and cohesion through so many centuries, have an empirical knowledge of genetics much greater than our own, but our knowledge is so limited that we can neither confirm nor disprove Dr. Alfred Nossig’s terrifying boast, “A single little drop of Jewish blood influences the mentality of entire families, even through a long series of generations.” (30)

(30. Although Nossig’s Intergrales Judentum was published simultaneously in Vienna, Berlin, and New York in 1922, it is now extremely rare and has never been translated into English. Nossig gives his fellow Jews eminently practical advice on the ways by which they can most expeditiously attain the goal and purpose which, as he says, is implicit in the teachings of Moses, i.e., the formation of One World under their dominion. Recognizing that his race controls both Capitalism and Socialism, he calls for a coordinated application of both forces to put the goyim in their place–which, of course, will be good for the stupid animals, if they are docile. The statement I have translated occurs on p. 76, where Dr. Nossig goes on to claim that the “drop” of Jewish heredity, once implanted in an ancestor, will affect the brain cells (Gehirnganglien) of his descendants through many subsequent generations and thus make them susceptible to Jewish ideas of internationalism and One World. Persons of that infected heredity, therefore, are goyim who can readily be mobilized as auxiliaries and used to subjugate their own race and the entire globe to its destined Masters. Horresco referens.

There is one great difference between Spengler’s concept of race and Yockey’s. Although Spengler recognizes the Jews as a Magian people imbued with a Magian world-outlook and so instinctively different from us (and therefore at the limit incomprehensible to us), and although he knows that this alien body, this international nation, is today, as it was for centuries before the Christian Era, lodged in all the nations of the world that it can profitably exploit, he regards the natural antagonism between Jews and their hosts as basically not determined by biological race, but rather by the phase of civilization, the Jews representing a Magian culture that is much older than ours and now petrified. (Hence, of course, Toynbee’s description of the Jews as a “fossil people,” despite the absurdity of applying such a phrase to a species that is so active and powerful and, quite possibly, has a vitality much greater than our own.) Spengler asked his readers to believe that the Jews are a dwindling and disintegrating people, a negligible force in world politics and the struggle for power. I have always thought the Jews’ aspersions of Spengler’s memory a good example of their habitual ingratitude toward their most effective apologists.

Yockey, educated by events that Spengler did not live to see, regards the Jews as the dominant force in the world of 1952. He has very little to say, however, about their unvarying activity through all the centuries since they first appear in history, and he focuses his attention entirely on the present. We must therefore postpone consideration of it to a later section, and conclude our discussion of historical theory with notice of one crucial deficiency in both writers.

On the tragic consequences of Christianity:

It is odd that Spengler, and even odder that Yockey, has so little to say about the prime example of what they call “pseudo-morphosis,” the acceptance of an alien element by a young culture, which accordingly strives to make its Weltanschauung conform to a pattern that is repugnant to its inner nature. As we noticed above, Spengler’s dichotomy between the “Apollonian” and the “Faustian” cultures makes him consider our Renaissance an example of such a cultural delusion, but although he recognizes the “Magian” culture as totally alien to our own, he never investigates a far more startling pseudo-morphosis, the imposition of a Magian religion on a Faustian people. And of all the writers who follow the Spenglerian conception, only Lawrence Brown had the very great merit of having perceived the tragic consequences of the fact that the culture of modern Europe was, at its very beginning, infected by a Levantine religion, so that it became “a society whose inward convictions have been at hopeless variance with the outward professions the events of history have forced it to make,” thus producing a spiritual tension that “has destroyed the peace of mind of every able man in the West for a thousand years.”

How “conversion” serves the jews:

Belief in the psychic magic of “conversion”, furthermore, opened the way for the Bolshevism that attained its fullest development in Christianity, the devastating notion that Faith–a faith that is as thoughtless and preferably as unconscious as the “faith” of a vegetable or a mustard seed–was what counted, so that an ignorant peasant, an illiterate fisherman, or the most scurvy proletarian could make himself the superior of the noblest, the bravest, and the wisest of men–and, secure in the favor or a god who so hates learning and reason that he will “make folly the wisdom of this world,” the simpletons and morons, having become True Believers, can look forward to the delights of seeing, when the last have been made first, their betters suffer the most atrocious torments forever and forever. No idea, no menticidal poison, could be more effective in destroying the culture and even the sanity of the people in whom it has been injected. (43) And the poison, destructive of all social stability and hence of civilization itself, survived the mythology from which it sprang and persists today in the atheistic “Liberals” who bleat about the “underprivileged,” fawn on savages, and demand an “open society” that is perpetually stirred up so that the dregs on the bottom may become the scum on the top.

(43. How alien this nonsense was to the mentality of our race is shown by the fact that, professing to believe it, they promptly began to reason about Faith and erected the vast intellectual structure of Scholasticism, “comme si raison et foi pouvaient trottiner de concert,” as Maurice Gar‡on sardonically comments. The final result, of course, was Nominalism and the labefaction of the Mediaeval Weltanschauung and eventually of the alien religion that had been incorporated in it.)

On morality:

The very idea of evil gods is alien and repugnant to the spirit of all authentically Aryan religions, which are never so irrational as to inject good and evil deities into a universe in which the very concepts of moral ‘good’ and moral ‘evil’ are indubitably created by human societies for their own purposes and correspond to nothing whatsoever in the world of nature. Wickedness can exist only within a given society of human beings and can be defined only in terms of the standards of morality that the society more or less instinctively applies to relationships among its own members. Only infantile minds can attribute moral iniquity to hurricanes, volcanoes, dynamite, and other natural phenomena that may be baneful to us; primitive peoples, ignorant of the causes, may superstitiously attribute such phenomena to supernatural forces and may imagine gods that are indifferent to human welfare or have been angered by some supposed offense, but so long as they have a vestige of rationality they will not imagine gods who are inherently evil and seeking to promote wickedness. A notion that species of animals (e.g. snakes, sharks, tigers) that defend themselves against us or prey on us, or that species of human beings that pursue their own advantage to our detriment (e.g. Japanese, Jews) are wicked because they obey the universal law of life is simply irrational. And when a pack of fanatics claims that all persons who do not share their superstitions are diabolically evil, they are insane, prevalent as that form of insanity may be. The Zoroastrian dualism may fairly be called the most devastating mental disease that ever became epidemic on this planet.

The Aryan religions are not infected by that black delusion.

More on Aryan traits and spirituality, eugenics and dysgenics:

The Aryans did not have the hatred of civilized life that inspires the dualists’ notion of Faith, a blind belief in certain tales by which ignorance and credulity are exalted above learning and reason. The Aryans respected the gods they imagined, but with a manly self-respect also; they did not cringe and cower before celestial despots, as do races with the slave-mentality and Sklavenmoral of the Near East.

The Aryan spirit is innately aristocratic and heroic. Aryan man, when he is most fully Aryan, is driven by a spiritual passion to excel, (57)–to realize, at whatever cost to himself, whatever capacity for greatness he may have within him. And while he rationally expects to find perfection in gods and men no more than in the world of physical reality, he has innately certain ideals of personal honor, fairness, and manly compassion that are incomprehensible to other races. (58) Both of these characteristics, however, although they are the source of all the greatness our race has attained, make Aryans vulnerable. The very superiority of men who approach our racial ideal makes it easy for a parasitic race or our own criminal elements to rouse against us the inferior’s resentment of superiority and to excite envy and malice in proletarian herds, thus disrupting our society in what Ortega y Gasset calls, “the revolt of the underman.” And artful appeals to our sense of fairness and compassion can excite, especially in females, the irrational sentimentality that ignores the fact that a cohesive society is an organism and, like all organisms, can live only by excreting its waste products–the grim fact that, by the unalterable laws of biology, we, like all mammals, bring to birth biological tares and misfits, which must be eliminated, if the species is not to degenerate to eventual extinction. And what the struggle for life does automatically for other mammals, our species, being capable of reason and purposeful social organization, must do deliberately–or perish.

Memes can and do shape genes:

For Aryans, including, of course, the Germanic peoples who invaded the moribund Empire that had once been Roman, Christianity has been a deadly and perhaps fatal poison, a delusion that forced our people to act against the dictates of their own biological nature. (59) If ever in recorded history there was a cultural pseudo-morphosis, that was it.

(59. Christianity was also deleterious to our race biologically, but we cannot measure or even estimate its dysgenic effect. It certainly encouraged the preservation and reproduction of the unfit, and, through both monasticism and the distribution of social rewards, it inhibited the reproduction of superior men and women. Having given the Jews a privileged position and enriched them, it facilitated Jewish penetration of our society by a common ruse: Aryan males were hooked by offering them smiling Jewesses with generous or lavish dowries; the Jewesses, although perfunctorily sprinkled with holy water, had naturally been taught by the inspiring examples of Esther and Judith that their loyalty was to their race, not to the goy whose bed they shared and whom the would manipulate in the interests of their kind. A Jewish strain, conceivably as potent as Dr. Nossig claimed (see note 30 above), was thus planted in many gentle, noble, and even royal families and may, as some believe, account for their decadence, both mental and physical, as frequently occurs when incompatible genetic strains are combined. But statistics on all these points are lacking, and if we had them, we should only face the impossible task of measuring what happened against what would have happened, if Europe under the Germanic peoples had adopted some other (what other?) religion or religions. Charles Renouvier’s Uchronie (Paris, 1876) will sufficiently entertain and discourage those who must speculate about the incalculable.

Connecting “jewish penetration” to Christian/”liberal” guilt:

An anonymous writer in Instauration (Aug. 1980) sought to explain psychologically one of the most drastic and puzzling effects of Christianity on our race and civilization. When our ancestors accepted the Magian cult, they believed themselves at the mercy of a capricious and ferocious god whom they had to appease and placate by observing absurd taboos and imposing on themselves unnatural conduct their racial instincts rejected. Thus they had a sense of guilt without consciously knowing why. By not sinning in the eyes of Yahweh, they were sinning against themselves. They were biologically guilty. From this inner conflict,–from the subconscious mind’s reaction to the perpetual conflict between the innate nature of a healthy Aryan and the conduct his Christian or “Liberal” superstitions require of him,–comes the maddening sense of personal and racial guilt that has been for centuries and is today a black and monstrous incubus on the minds of our race. This explanation may well be right.)

Contrasting Spengler and Yockey on jewish influence:

I have tried above to exhibit briefly the magnitude of the cultural distortion that is overlooked by both Spengler and Yockey, although, according to their own doctrines, it was the imposition on the Faustian soul of a Magian ideology, the product of a totally alien civilization. Spengler, however, who goes almost as far as Toynbee in regarding the Jews as a “fossil people,” can be defended on the grounds that he regards the Faustian culture of the West as one that arose, around the year 900, among the dominant peoples who then lived in Europe, regardless of ethnic diversities or innate racial characteristics, and that Christianity was simply an element that entered into that culture. From that standpoint, our culture, whether for better or worse, was as naturally and inevitably Christian as Napoleon was a Corsican. To ask what our civilization would have been like without Christianity is like asking what George Washington would have become, had he been born of different parents. Our estimate of Spengler’s historionomy will therefore depend on our acceptance or rejection of (a) his conception of a culture as largely independent of biological race, and (b) his assumption that the Jews as such, have had no great influence over our history.

For Yockey, no such apology will serve. He follows Spengler, it is true, in his general doctrine of race, but he attributes to the Jews, whom he frequently designates as the “culture-distorters,” a vast and decisive influence over our recent history, and since he does not claim that their baneful power is a recent phenomenon, he must logically believe that it has been exercised against us in earlier centuries. If he is to give us a philosophical comprehension of the historical process, he must explain the nature, origin, and development of that power–and obviously such an explanation must include consideration of the effects of Christianity on both our people and the Jews who, for purposes that Yockey recognizes as hostile, lived among them.

As I have said before, I come neither to praise not to bury Yockey, but merely to evaluate his work. It is clear, I believe, that as an exegesis of historical causality, Imperium and, of course, its sequel are radically defective, even in terms of their own premises. They have other values.

Oliver fleshes out Yockey’s critique of the “18/20ths” “crisis” (see Yockey on Culture and Race – Part 3 and Part 4) and “social Darwinism” (see Part 5) by incorporating rather than overlooking the jews:

The technological achievements of our race, which made us masters of the entire globe until we succumbed to a fit of suicidal mania, did produce, around the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, “one world,” in the sense that events anywhere on the planet did affect in some way the interests of the great colonial empires of Britain, France, and Spain and might vitally concern some of the other Aryan nations, such as Germany and the United States. The peoples of other races were merely raw material; they occupied their territories on our sufferance, either because it would not be economically profitable for us to dispossess them or because the reciprocal jealousies of the colonial powers made a war between Aryan nations the price of annexing China or Morocco. And since our race seemed to be healthy, it was only reasonable to foresee that, with our continued progress and expansion, the lower races would, in the course of nature, become extinct. (3)

(3. Charles Darwin to W. Graham, 3 July 1881: “Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago, of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilised so-called Caucasian Races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.”)

Until 1914, no fact was more obvious than that the power-structure of the world, after the decline of Spain, depended on the three great nations of Europe, Britain, France, and Germany, with two outlying states, Russia and the United States, available as auxiliaries to one or the other of the three. It is true that beneath this structure there was a disquieting fact: seventy years before, Benjamin D’Israeli had emphatically warned Europeans that race was the basis of civilization, that “there is only one thing that makes a race, and that is blood,” that all the nations of Europe were covertly under the control of the Jews, and that the “destructive principle,” which was being used stealthily to undermine our civilization, was “developing entirely under the auspices of the Jews.” (4) Only a very few members of our race were sufficiently alert to understand what he had told them in the clearest possible terms. And thirty years before 1914, Friedrich Nietzsche had clearly foreseen that Europe faced “a long series of catastrophes” and “wars such as the world has not yet seen,” had perceived that our civilization was suffering from a degenerative disease of both intellect and will, and had identified the deadly infection as a superstition that the Jews had devised and disseminated to poison our minds and souls. (5) Only a few men of philosophical intellect understood him. Not only the masses, of whom rational thought for the future is not to be expected, but almost all of the persons who thought of themselves as an aristocracy or a learned elite were sunk in an euphoric complacency, believing in an effortless and automatic “progress” and the Jewish economic system in which money is the only value of human life.

Rather than seeing the root of the problem in spirit or ideology, as Yockey does, Oliver recognizes it as biological, while also noting the critical importance of awareness and perception, i.e. consciousness:

In 1914, our civilization was worm-eaten at the core, but its brightly glittering surface concealed the corruption within from superficial eyes. It was taken for granted that the globe had become one world, the world of which the Aryan nations were the undisputed masters, while all the lesser races already were, or soon would become, merely the subject inhabitants of their colonial possession. This reasonable conception of the world’s unity oddly survived the catastrophes that followed and it conditioned unthinking mentalities to accept the preposterous notions of the current propaganda for “One World,” which is couched in endless gabble that is designed to conceal the fact that it is to be a globe under the absolute and ruthless dominion of the Jews–a globe on which our race, if not exterminated, will be the most degraded and abject of all.

The apparent unity of the globe when it was under the dominion of our race depended, as must all rule, on military power, but it was so contentedly accepted by the other races in the various colonies because our power was proof of a biological superiority that was evident in the discipline of our troops and the courage, intelligence, and moral integrity of our men. (6) It was therefore a function of a biological unity that was only belatedly perceived by our people, and even then only by the few men who were able and willing to study the hidden foundations on which the imposing structure of power really rested, notably the Comte de Gobineau and Vacher de Lapouge. The reality of race was generally overlooked because men took the innate superiority of Europeans so for granted that they thought it unnecessary to mention it and instead concentrated their attention on the rivalries and antagonisms that divided the great powers of Europe, assuming that a shift in the balance of power in Europe would automatically be a shift in power over the entire globe.

On the rise of European self-image and self-consciousness since the Middle Ages:

With negligible exceptions, all the inhabitants of Europe thus defined were Aryans, comprising Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean subraces with a slight Dinaric admixture in some places. (8) The leadership throughout Europe (even, e.g., in Italy) was mostly Nordic. The differences between the subraces, although slight when compared to the great differences that distinguish Aryans from all other races, impeded a consciousness of racial unity at a time when Europe was truly international (and, to be exact, there were no nations in the modern sense, the territories being divided according to the rulers who were sovereign within them). The great contribution of the Church was that it transcended all territorial boundaries and gave all educated men a common language and common culture. They could move freely throughout Europe. William of Occam, the great Nominalist, studied at Oxford, taught in Paris, and spent the later part of his life in Pisa. The abbots of Monte Cassino in its great days came from Germany. One could multiply at great length examples of internationalism within Europe during the Middle Ages.

Yockey urged Europeans to consider the grim realities of the plight they brought upon themselves by their insane and suicidal war for the Jews. He told them bluntly that they must not permit themselves to be narcotized by the endless drivel about “peaceful solutions,” “world peace,” “one world,” and the rest of the gabble to which weak minds are addicted as to opium or cocaine. If they are to have a future, they must deal with both the aliens that drove them to suicide and their own tares, which he, using a German idiom, called the “Michael stratum.”

Yockey reminded Europeans that the only political reality is power, military power, not the twittering of idealists and “Liberals” as they hop from perch to perch on a tree of which they cannot see the roots or understand the life. And he suggested the means whereby Europe might regain at least some of the power that it had insanely thrown away to please its enemies.

Yockey prefigured contemporary Eurasianism:

Yockey saw Europe as lying, temporarily helpless, between two overwhelmingly powerful antagonists, so that the only choice left to it was a choice between its two enemies, which were fortunately enemies of each other. His thesis depended, therefore, on his belief that the Soviet Empire and the United States were irreconcilable forces. And since the United States was obviously an instrumentality of the Jews, that meant that the Jews had lost control of Russia. Yockey thus proposed a solution to a problem that has been earnestly, sometimes furiously, and in the end inconclusively debated ever since, so that it remains the most urgent problem that is immediately before us. On the truth or falsity of Yockey’s solution will depend our foreseeable future.

Oliver was skeptical:

We have been assured so many times that the Jews were losing or had lost control of Russia and the Soviet!

To the end of his life, Yockey remained convinced that a war between the Jews’ United States and the Soviet was inevitable. That conviction was the basis of his last essay, written shortly before his death in 1960.

Yockey was aware of the major objection to his analysis: If the Jews had lost control of Russia, how did it happen that the United States, which saved the Soviet in 1941-45, (25) continued to facilitate the expansion of Russian power?

Oliver quotes Yockey’s answer, which includes this accurate assessment of the motives and mentality of the jews:

It is a psychological riddle, decipherable only thus: the Zionists have two minds, which function independently. As Jews, they are committed to the destruction of Western Civilization, and in this they sympathize with Russia, with China, with Japan, with the Arabs, and as such they anathematize Germany, which is the mind and heart of the Western Civilization. As custodians of the United States, they must half-heartedly retain at least the technical and political domination of that Civilization even while destroying its soul and meaning. In a word, they are working simultaneously for and against the Western Civilization. Quite obviously, they are thus doing more damage than conferring benefit…..

‘Thus the newspaper tag of “East versus West” is meaningless. It is East versus East, with the West supplying the lives and treasure for destruction.’

Oliver was writing in 1981 concerning what Yockey had written before 1960. Lo and behold, here we are in 2014 and the jews’ never-ending efforts to spark destruction looms large now in Ukraine. A hundred years after the outbreak of WWI the jews are prodding what remains of Europe to the brink of WWIII.

Yockey on Liberalism – Part 1


Revilo Oliver wrote The Shadow of Empire: Francis Parker Yockey After Twenty Years in June of 1966. Oliver regarded “the great problem of history” to be whether “cataclysmic changes [e.g. the British conquest of India and subsequent withdrawal] are wrought by the weakness and folly of men or by blind and ineluctable forces of nature”. Oliver noted:

The great modern philosopher of history is, of course, Oswald Spengler, whose Decline of the West formulated the problem in terms so clear and universal that everything written on the subject since 1918 has perforce had to be a commentary on Spengler — an attempt to extend, modify, or refute his magisterial synthesis.

Oliver described the connection between Spengler’s work and Yockey’s:

Francis Parker Yockey proudly proclaimed himself the disciple of the man to whom he often refers as simply The Philosopher

Oliver on Yockey’s Imperium:

This is not a book for “liberal intellectuals” or other children. No man can study history until he has learned that he must study it objectively and dispassionately, without reference to his emotions or predilections.. Whether you view Caesar with admiration or horror, whether you love or hate him, has nothing whatever to do with the fact that he was victorious at Pharsalus.

No man should consider problems in historionomy if he does not realize that the only question before him will be the accuracy of the diagnosis or prognosis. The validity of the analysis does not in the least depend on the reader’s emotional reaction to the future that it portends. When a physician diagnoses diabetes or arteriosclerosis or cancer, the only question is whether he has observed the symptoms accurately and reasoned from them correctly. Our wish that the patient did not have the disease is utterly irrelevant.

Infantile minds, accustomed to living almost entirely in the vaporous realm of their own imagination, are incapable of distinguishing between reality and their own fancies. That is why I counsel “liberal intellectuals” not to read Imperium. If they are able to understand it, the book will certainly send them into a tantrum and may induce a paroxysmic fit. They had better stay in their academic lecture-halls or other play-pens, where they can be happy making mud-pies, which they can call “world peace” and about which they can dance in a circle, chanting

Higgledy-piggledy, my fat hen,
Now we’ve got a big U.N.

I also hope that Imperium will not fall into the hands of tenderhearted Conservatives who want to Love Everybody. Those dear ladies have noble souls, but they are much too good for this world.

Oliver also expressed some concerns about Spengler, Yockey and Imperium:

Spengler assumed such plasticity of human nature that he greatly underestimated and almost ignored the biological differences between human beings. Spengler was deceived by the pseudo-scientific data forged or distorted by the school of Franz Boas

Spengler cites Boas with unjustified respect, and Yockey follows Spengler, though with some prudent reservations. Both try to refute genetics by citing examples of apparently total cultural assimilation; they do not see that these could be explained by phenomena they recognize elsewhere: the cultural passivity of the majority in all nations and cultures, and the tendency of isolated individuals to adapt themselves to the society in which they find themselves. It is true that Orientals in the West have conformed, with apparent eagerness and sincerity, to Occidental culture; it is also true that white men have “gone native” among the American Indians and Polynesians. The one example proves no more than the other.

Race Ignored

Spengler virtually ignores race as a biological reality and even uses the word “race” in a non-biological sense to designate full participation in a culture.

See my previous work on race and anthropology and race and fraud for more information about Franz Boas and how the jewish intellectual movement known as Boasian anthropology derailed race science.

For Yockey, the question is less critical than for Spengler. Yockey is concerned primarily with showing that “race-differences between White men, which means Western men, is vanishingiy small” in comparison with the gulfs that separate Western men from Negroes and Orientals. That, no one can deny.

Imperium contains a number of historical oversights and lapses, such as are inevitable when a man tries to generalize from a vast mass of complex details — inevitable even when the author writes in a well-stocked library after decades of intensive study and meditation. Yockey, it must be remembered, was a young man of thirty-one, by profession a lawyer, who wrote in a room of an isolated inn on the lonely shore of the Irish Sea north of St. George’s Channel — wrote from memory in a fire of inspiration and while still feeling the moral revulsion caused, by his participation in the early stages of the obscene farce that was enacted at Nuremberg to provide a hypocritical pretext for the lynchings that the United States carried out as a pawn of the International Communist Conspiracy. I shall merely list the three most conspicuous historical errors.

In Oliver’s estimation Yockey did not fully grasp the long-term, biological nature of the jewish problem:

The Jewish Race

(3) When Yockey concluded that the Jewish “race” (in his non-biological sense of the word) was formed by the ghettoes of Mediaeval Europe, he probably did not know that the historical record extends over twenty-five centuries. There is no reason to suppose that the Jews who migrated to the Mediaeval cities and established their ghettoes aroused more resentment among the Christian populations than the Jews who settled on an island in the Nile near the First Cataract aroused among the native Egyptian population in the fifth century B.C. Yockey’s mistake, by the way, vitiates the parallel that he draws between the Jews in Europe and the Parsees in India.

Such errors of detail do not invalidate the general thesis of Imperium. Yockey’s analysis of the forces that are eroding our civilization is significantly supported by the fact that Lawrence R. Brown, who wrote when Imperium was almost unprocurable and seems never to have heard of it, reached substantially the same conclusions by an entirely different method in his learned and lucid work, The Might of the West (New York, Obolensky, 1963). And in several distinct areas, the future that Yockey forecast in 1947 seems to be taking shape before our eyes today. Imperium is not a revelation of an ineluctable future, but it is a work that we must study and ponder, if we would act intelligently in our time.

Even so, Oliver still saw value in Yockey’s work:

The great value of Imperium is that it forces us to reconsider our position realistically.

The liberalism Yockey critiques seems quite distinct from what I have so far discussed in What is Liberalism?, Liberalism as a Death Wish and Liberalism as a Suicide Pact. Yockey’s view of liberalism seems similar to Guessedworker’s view, in that both regard liberalism as an irrepressible expression of European man. Next time we’ll compare Yockey’s points with the broader philosophy-of-society liberalism we have previously explored.

My attempt to understand liberalism is an attempt to understand the cataclysmic changes wrought in its name. The answer, it seems, is not in either man or nature, but in both, in man’s nature. As difficult as it may be to overcome our nature, those of us who struggle to understand this nature, and to communicate our understanding to others, do so only because we do wish to overcome it.

Ted Sallis noted Kerry Bolton’s New Yockey Biography Project at The Occidental Observer. Sallis echoed Oliver’s concerns:

Many of Yockey’s ideas on biological race specifically, and on science and scientific topics generally, are not only ludicrous but just plain wrong. Objectively wrong. With respect to race, I suspect that the views of Yockey (and Evola as well) were negatively influenced by some of the racial theories popular before WWII, and still extant today, particularly in the American “movement.” In other words, I don’t think Yockey had any problem with the major racial (e.g., European/African/Asian) distinctions; instead, Yockey was likely troubled by the idea of disjunctive subracial (e.g., Nordic/Alpine/Mediterranean) European subdivisions that considered these putative subraces as almost different species (with implications of superiority/inferiority). As a promoter of European unity, Yockey eagerly latched on to absurd Boasian counter-theories to invalidate what he saw as invidious and divisive distinctions among Europeans.

You can find more information about Francis Parker Yockey and Imperium at Metapedia.

The Country Club Thing

As an addendum to Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiding as Ethnic Warfare I quoted Rob Eshman’s use of the jewish narrative to excuse jewish behavior:

It’s not complicated, really. Poor little Jordan wanted to show those WASPs whose country clubs he couldn’t join that he was smarter, richer, better. What he failed to understand is that just about every Jew, every minority, shares the same impulses. But only a select few decide the only way to help themselves is to hurt others.

Sailer’s response to Eshman was:

I really am going to have to write about the country club thing one of these days. I’ve found an Anti-Defamation League report from a half century ago on country clubs that’s pretty interesting.

I can’t wait. Of course, the country club thing is only one of several common tropes in jewish tales of woe specific to America. Other, similar tropes focus on the relatively brief period during which there were informal limits on the number of jews admitted to some universities (discussed here) and informal restrictions on where they could work or reside (ala Gentleman’s Agreement, discussed here and here). The irony is that the jews are able to tell their one-sided woe-is-me version of this history only because the “WASP” defense of themselves and their institutions was not strong enough.

The explanation for jewish hostility is less complicated than either Eshman or Sailer will admit. It’s racial animus. The jews are parasites, hyper-aware of their otherness, the distinction between themselves and their host, in both body and mind. Conflicts of interest between them and their hosts are unavoidable. Jewish excuse-making and guilt-tripping is one mechanism for managing it. They understand the animus. They wish and indeed need to monopolize the explanation of it, to spin it in their favor.

The jewish narrative, stripped to its essence, is: YOU aren’t US, YOU should feel bad about that and try harder to please US. The double-think takes root in hosts with universalist, or at least pluralist tendencies. It expresses itself as a form of willful confusion about who US is: B-but, WE are all US, let US try harder to please US!

To see through this, you must be willing to think about what US means, and especially in biological terms, as the jews do. At least a few fans of Sailer’s “race realism” and “human biodiversity” are on the cusp of such understanding. As one commenter wonders:

What is this Jewish problem or hangup about country clubs? Freedom of association is a natural and okay thing. If WASPS didn’t want to have them, that’s their right. It is a PRIVATE club, not PUBLIC property like a library. Why couldn’t Jews just have their own clubs? Did it REALLY bug Jews that much that WASPS didn’t prefer them over their own kind? Why would they? Do Jews need validation so badly?

Why indeed. It is only a mystery as long as you pretend that jews are part of your US, or even wish to coexist with your US. They don’t. You are there to be infiltrated, manipulated, exploited. For their own good. This is why the suicide meme is so insidious. It is premised on, relies on, and even adds to the muddled thinking about who US is, abetting the “suicide” it purports to deplore.

While waiting on Sailer to share his little ADL tidbit, I’d like to recommend something Revilo Oliver wrote. It indicates not just how well established, how essential this “country club thing” is in the jewish psyche, but also how fruitless it is to go searching through history for ways to excuse jewish parasitism.

The following text comes from Oliver’s The Jewish Strategy:


In the early years of our era, the Jews were then (as now) busy selling religion and revolution to the natives, and that is undoubtedly what the Emperor Claudius meant in 41 A.D. when, in his letter of warning to the Jews in Egypt (preserved in a papyrus now in the British Museum, R Lond. 1912), he described them as “the fomenters of a universal plague.”

Claudius’ phrase is the best description of the biologically innate nature of Jews that I have seen. I hope this does not startle you; if it does, I recommend a little objective observation of Jews engaged in collective action.

The publication of these papyri in the British Museum stopped with Volume V, just short of the group of papyri, beginning with #1912, that deal with Jews and Christians in Egypt. These, however, were edited in a separate volume by H. Idris Bell, London, 1924, which can be found under his name in any good library. Why the official series stopped where it did (and has never been continued), I do not know. One suspects there was a Jew in the woodpile.

P. Lond. 1912 is a long papyrus fragment excellently preserved. It is a private copy of an edict by Claudius that was posted in public places in Alexandria in 41 A.D. and is complete. It is in Greek, not Latin, because in Egypt every literate person (Greeks, Jews, Egyptians, and the comparatively few Romans who were there as governors and military commanders) knew Greek, whereas only the Roman officials knew Latin at all. Bell believes that our Greek text was translated from Claudius’s Latin, but I am certain that the text is what Claudius himself dictated to a secretary in Greek. Like every educated Roman of his day, Claudius spoke and wrote Greek fluently, and furthermore he was something of a scholar and wrote his two major historical works (now lost) in Greek. This Greek text contains stylistic peculiarities that are characteristic of Claudius’s mentality, but would probably have been smoothed away by a translator.

Claudius, who was born in 10 B.C., was the son of the male child with whom Livia was pregnant at the time that Augustus married her. If that child was legitimate, it was the son of Livia’s first husband and the younger brother of the Emperor Tiberius. If the child was illegitimate, as many suspected, Augustus was probably the father, but never acknowledged the paternity. Claudius’s mother was the daughter of Mark Antony. Claudius in infancy suffered from poliomyelitis or a similar disease that left him with a partly paralysed foot, some impediment in his speech, and muscles of the face and neck subject to spastic contractions. Regarded as unfit for public life, he devoted himself to historical and antiquarian studies, becoming both erudite and pedantic. He was quite intelligent, but timorous, excitable, and gullible, especially toward persons who showed him some attention and professed friendship during the first fifty-one years of his life, when he was regarded as an awkward and ridiculous political nullity, the butt of his nephew Caligula’s wit. Among those who thus acquired his gratitude and confidence were a number of clever Jews of great wealth and influence in Rome. Among these was Marcus Julius Agrippa (note the purely Roman name; a grandson of the Herod who appears in many versions of the Christ story), who, when the barbarian mercenaries rioted after the assassination of Caligula and, while plundering the palace, found old Claudius hiding in a closet and dragged him out to proclaim him emperor, by subtle and crafty machinations and bribery managed to get Claudius installed and recognized as emperor by the Senate. Claudius rewarded him generously, and was always under the influence of the prominent Jews in Rome. That is what makes his pronouncement so significant.

Alexandria was, of course, founded by Alexander the Great as a Greek city in conquered Egypt, and it became under his Greek successors, the Ptolemies, the capital of that country. Its position as the only real harbour in Egypt added to its great prosperity, and naturally Jews came streaming in from their colonies all over the civilized world. Alexandria became the New York of the ancient world, i.e., the largest Jewish city. The Jews took over two of the five quarters of the city for their ghettoes, from which they unofficially but effectively excluded white people, but naturally insisted on pushing their way into all the other quarters of the city and making themselves obnoxious in their normal ways. Jews always betray the countries in which they are feeding on the natives, so naturally, when Augustus attacked Egypt, the Jews naturally betrayed the Greeks, who remained loyal to Cleopatra, the last of the Ptolemies. Augustus punished the Greeks for their loyalty by depriving them of their local self-government, and rewarded the Jews for their treason with many special privileges, including the right to have a kind of Jewish government of their own.

The Jews, now riding high, naturally pushed the Greeks around more than ever, thrusting themselves into the gymnasia and other Greek institutions that were traditionally for Greeks only and inciting riots whenever they were so “persecuted” that the Greeks did not recognize them as a vastly superior race. The result was an endless series of civil disturbances that the Romans were powerless to prevent because no government dared to revoke Augustus’s grant of special privileges to the Jews. In the second year after Claudius became emperor, there was another one of the perennial riots in Alexandria that became virtual civil wars in the city, which was the most populous in the ancient world.

The Greeks of Alexandria despatched an embassy of their leading citizens to Claudius to request restoration of their local government and explain the cause of the riots, and the Jews, of course, sent an embassy of their own to snivel and whine about being “persecuted” by the wicked goyim.

The edict of Claudius of which the papyrus is a copy is addressed to the Greeks of Alexandria and announces his decision concerning the requests made by their envoys.

Omitted here are the contents of the document, both in the original Greek and Oliver’s translation.

The translation could be polished a bit, but it will show the meaning. The sentence in which we are particularly interested, delineated in detail, reads:

But if (they do) not, I shall in every way wreck vengeance upon them inasmuch as (=on the grounds that) they are persons who foment (=incite, propagate) a universal (=ubiquitous, found everywhere) disease (=pestilence, plague) of the oecumene (i.e., the settled and inhabited world, as distinct from jungles, steppes, and deserts).

You will have noticed that Jews were behaving normally in Alexandria, not only whining about being “persecuted” because of their Love of God while pushing their way into every place where the despised goyim hope to have a little privacy from them, but even illegally importing fellow parasites to prey on the white cattle, just as the Jews are constantly importing thousands of their congeners into the United States, not only across the border from Canada, but by ships that land thousands of the dear creatures at Red Hook on Long Island, whence they are carried by limousine to the New Jerusalem commonly called New York City, in open defiance of the immigration officers, who know about it but dare not intervene.

The country club thing is a parasitic thing. It is a pattern of behavior in jews which can be traced back as far back into recorded history as you care to go.